I don't think you are. I think Chris' observations are very
interesting, but I note that he's used the 'soft' setting.
According to the Minolta manual in the .pdf format, p.97, this
applies a 'soft' filter, and thus blurs the image slightly - you
can see this in the images reproduced in the manual. The only
setting which applies no filter is 'normal' and I'm a little
puzzled, Chris, why you changed this?
I use "soft" setting because the normal and sharp settings both
place sharpening artefacts into the image. If you take the same
image at all three settings and superimpose them, you can see that
they all result in the same pixels containing the same details
occupying the same spaces. There is no smearing, diffusing,
blurring or spreading of the image and there are no contrast
"enhancements" either. With "soft" setting, the detail is portrayed
at the same colour and contrast as the original item. At "normal"
and "sharp", pixels that are significantly darker (and sometimes a
different colour) than the original item are introduced to details
in order to make them stand out more. I therefore assume that
"soft" is no filtering and that "normal" represents an amount of
filtering considered to be average for the class of camera or some
arbitary benchmark and sharp / hard is further enhanced. Also,
normal and hard settings can affect the colour of hair, darkening
it a little. As I like to control my sharpening properly by use of
USM, edge sharpening and various area masking techniques, I shoot
"soft" to get the best starting point and least image noise.
Adam-T has suggested that the jpeg settings supress some noise at
the expense of detail, and my own tests very much support this -
see my shots in the 'RAW vs jpeg' thread, where to my eye (and
others!) there is appreciably more detail in the RAW (top) image
than in the xtrafine jpeg, which I feel is slightly 'smeared' in
the finest detail.
I have examined images of identical frames at pixel vs pixel level
and can find almost no difference in detail. What is different is
the way detail is portrayed. RAW is possibly closer to Fine JPEG
than XFine JPEG in its presentation, but these differences at pixel
level would not be visible in an A3 print. Only standard JPEG would
produce visible artefacts on an A3 print.
The most faithful detail to the original seems to be produced by
TIFF, but you pay a price in high file sizes, slightly more vibrant
than natural colours, high contrast and reduced shooting
performance while the buffer clears. Image noise in TIFF is very
much improved over all other file formats. If you want a crisp,
vibrant and low noise image, TIFF is the way to go.
I shoot RAW almost exclusively now. Noise is somewhat increased,
as one would expect from Adam-T's suggestion, but the wonderful
NeatImage really does take care of that with minimal loss of
detail. AAMOI I use +2 on the saturation setting, and +1 (warmer)
on the colour setting in the excellent Dimage Viewer. YMMV
I use Neat Image sometimes, but have found that with RAW files (and
all the others as well), it can produce a loss of fine texture in
seas and grass and can also introduce very faint patterns into the
sky if cloud is present, so I tend to use it to make a masking
layer and live with the noise in textured areas where it does not
show. Also, if you shoot soft and dont have to run the file through
NI, you end up with as least as much and possibly more detail than
if you shoot normal then NI it (dependent on subject matter of
course)
Having been fortunate enough to work with microscopes and electron
microscopes in my job for some years, I have a good understanding
of how microscopic details will affect the image when viewed at
normal size.
The joy of the A1 is that we get to choose all of this for
ourselves. If you take 3 sharpness settings, 10 contrast settings,
10 saturation settings and 5 file formats, you can leave home with
1500 different rolls of colour film loaded into one camera and pick
the best one to suit each scene.
What I am starting to wonder as I do these tests is: is it noise
that we see at ISO100? TIFF particularly has very clean images and
the level of noise perceived does vary in frequency and intensity
with recording formats. What we may be seeing as noise may well be
a product of the internal image processing. Certainly, sharpness
control puts in noise in selected places to enhance contrast.
As an aside we have acquired a resident peacock in our grounds, and
on a gloomy afternoon the AS on the A1 enabled me to get some
excellent shots which my Canon G3 failed to do.
Any photos of the peacock to post to cheer us up in the gloomy
January weather Tony?
Chris
Getting rather attached to my A1.
